Leica M240 and lux 35/1.4 really outperformed by Sony RX1R?

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been wrestling with both the M240 and the Monochrom when it comes to focusing on my two fast moving grandchildren. I have used my D-Lux 6 however, the IQ isn't on par with the Ms. After reading this thread I went out and purchased an RX1R.

 

Overall impression is the build is nice and the IQ is outstanding. I have had the X1 and X2, the RX1R is superior. At least, in my opinion. It is nice to have auto focus along with great image quality in a small package. It will never replace the M240 or Monochrome, they offer so much more in regards to lenses. Unfortunately, the EVF was out of stock. I will try one and see if it helps me connect emotionally to the composition in the same way as a Range Finder. Obviously, this is important when photographing my family.

 

As an additional note, I am almost sixty and my eyesight precludes me from fast focusing the M.

 

Tom

 

By the way - as someone who also has 2 small kids (and often uses Leica M to photograph them) I find the Canon 5dIII a dream for takin action images of the kids. Just put a 24-70/2.8II on it and speed of taking an image will never ever be a question any more.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[k-hawinkler]

Tom, photographing children that are running around is somewhat akin to street photography that can be dynamic, as the photographer walks and turns in different directions to photograph subjects in various moving in various directions. In either situation, my experience is that, even with the best of eyes, M-camera rangefinder focusing is not fast enough — what one needs to do is to pre-focus (zone focus) and to learn how to change that quickly by just looking at the DOF markings on the lens barrel.

 

Fast autofocus, in my experience (with a Nikon D300), is not a panacea either because it's very easy, in such dynamic situations, for the camera frequently to focus on the wrong subject as the intended subject is moving around. On balance, I much prefer M-camera rangefinder focus for this type of street photography.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

 

Well, continuous autofocus tracking comes to mind.

It seems to work rather well on my D800E, provided the initial tracking focus is placed correctly.

One can even track a hummingbird in flight successfully by zooming in on its head for example with the new 80-400 mm Nikkor lens. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3516580

A friend of mine has great success with his 5Dmk3, tracking individual swimmers in competition with very high ISO shots.

 

I used to shoot the D300, gave it to my son together with a D3, Very nice cameras, especially the D3.

However one should not underestimate the technical progress being made in autofocus precision and tracking.

 

Of course, for manual focus I prefer the rangefinder in my M9 as well!

Unfortunately that technique is limited to a fairly small range in focal lengths.

[Guest malland]

Well, continuous autofocus tracking comes to mind.

It seems to work rather well on my D800E, provided the initial tracking focus is placed correctly...

With the D300, on which the (continuous) autofocus was very fast, this still seemed to me to be a very big "if" for street photography in busy streets with a lot of possible subjects at various distances.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

[k-hawinkler]

With the D300, on which the (continuous) autofocus was very fast, this still seemed to me to be a very big "if" for street photography in busy streets with a lot of possible subjects at various distances.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Tristes Tropiques [WIP]

 

No doubt!

And there are other reasons to prefer the M9 for that kind of photography.

But not being able to autofocus precisely on a moving target, even temporarily obscured, is becoming less and less of an issue.

[colonel]

AF discussions, especially on some other "gear orientated" forums obsess about things that are not that important to pros.

Very few AF systems are useful for real tracking (D4, 1DX, 5Diii) and only work if the object does not stray outside the grid. Peripheral points are also known as being less accurate.

Much of high speed photos are at fixed focus points.I find childrens parties quite easy for focus, shutter speed more important then focus IMHO

[tom0511]

AF discussions, especially on some other "gear orientated" forums obsess about things that are not that important to pros.

Very few AF systems are useful for real tracking (D4, 1DX, 5Diii) and only work if the object does not stray outside the grid. Peripheral points are also known as being less accurate.

Much of high speed photos are at fixed focus points.I find childrens parties quite easy for focus, shutter speed more important then focus IMHO

 

I took many images of my kids without AF. But I also realized that for some activities a good AF can help a lot to shoot scenes which are hard to shoot without AF (or where you need a lot of luck to have the subject in focus).

If you shoot a soccer game with a 70-200zoom on a 5d and a Leica M with whatever lens you like, and lets say your son shoots that 1 goal and you want to make sure you get the shot...my choice would be the DSLR, as much as I like the Leica.

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took many images of my kids without AF. But I also realized that for some activities a good AF can help a lot to shoot scenes which are hard to shoot without AF (or where you need a lot of luck to have the subject in focus).

If you shoot a soccer game with a 70-200zoom on a 5d and a Leica M with whatever lens you like, and lets say your son shoots that 1 goal and you want to make sure you get the shot...my choice would be the DSLR, as much as I like the Leica.

 

sure, with a football game, if I was a professional, I would have a 1Dx or D4 no question.

AF also allows you to shoot off more pictures to see if the AF has nailed anything. With the M, being MF, banging off loads of pictures if its OOF they will all be OOF

[jaapv]

I would say that a Leica M with the 80-200 prefocused just in front of the goal would do just as nicely.

[IWC Doppel]

Owing a whippet that does close on 40 mph and accelerates faster than any other dog, and for that matter I suspect any car up to 30mph, has taught me to zone focus and simply frame and shoot. She does get the better of me on many occasions but it's fun all the same

[tom0511]

I would say that a Leica M with the 80-200 prefocused just in front of the goal would do just as nicely.

 

If you use f16 maybe anyways - in the end I am sure one can take action images with all kind of cameras. I just thought to share my experience, which was adding a dslr to my "arsenal" made me realize that certain things are possible which I would not even have tried without AF. By the way for 90% of my photography I do not need AF.

 

With the M I often prefocus on a certain point (for example stone on the way) if I want to take images of running kids and then press the button when the kids reach that point. This way often the shot is ok but often the face is a little behind or in front of the focus scene. Its ok, but it is a lot of rial and error. And if something interesting happens before or after the kid reachs the point I am lost. With a (good) DSLR it is much more controlled.

But what works for me doesnt have to work for others.

[jaapv]

Having been shooting long lenses manually for more years than I care to remember I can assure you that I would shoot it with confidence wide open. Do you really think there were no action shots taken in football before say 1985?

[Peter H]

................ I just thought to share my experience, which was adding a dslr to my "arsenal" made me realize that certain things are possible which I would not even have tried without AF. .................

 

As a counterpoint, I found that getting rid of my AF equipment made me realise that many things are possible with MF that I would never have tried while I had AF cameras to hand.

 

Nevertheless, you are of course correct that some things are better suited to AF and others to MF, partly (largely) depending on the photographer.

 

It's surely a good thing for photographers, both pros and amateurs, that such sophisticated cameras are available to suit all tastes, and to allow us to find the most appropriate way to express ourselves without having to contort ourselves by using inappropriate equipment. Approached wisely, it should mean we are able to concentrate more on photography and less on the gear we use.

[wattsy]

Having been shooting long lenses manually for more years than I care to remember I can assure you that I would shoot it with confidence wide open.

 

Sounds like a cue to show your gull shot again, Jaap.

 

Do you really think there were no action shots taken in football before say 1985?

Whilst I don't fundamentally disagree with your point that there were many great sports action photographs taken prior to the advent of AF, it is important to remember that grainy 35mm film, largely printed in black and white on chip paper quality newsprint, hides a lot of sins. Sports photos are typically printed much larger nowadays, in colour and on glossier more refined paper stock. I doubt that many of the seasoned professionals in this field miss their manual focus systems and they probably couldn't give a monkey's that you can focus your Visoflex lens wide-open.

[Peter H]

.......... I doubt that many of the seasoned professionals in this field miss their manual focus systems and they probably couldn't give a monkey's that you can focus your Visoflex lens wide-open.

 

Correct.

 

Assessing the value of the M system on its suitability for photographing goal-mouth action is, how shall we put it, daft.

[tom0511]

Having been shooting long lenses manually for more years than I care to remember I can assure you that I would shoot it with confidence wide open. Do you really think there were no action shots taken in football before say 1985?

 

For sure great action shots are possible with manual focus.

I just thought if you suggest to prefocus in front of the goal and if we say "our" son shooting the goal could shoot it from 1m away or he might stay 10m away from the goal you need a lot of DOF to have him in focus.

I have used Leica M for many years and still use it a lot (maybe 75% of my images) and take many images of my small kids (2 and 5). I see many strong points of the system.

But for certain occasion I find a 5dIII much easier to use, much better keeper rate. But thats me and your skills might be different/better in regards to manual focusing action.

 

Still when I have no other camera than the M with me it doesnt meen that I am hesistating to shoot action shots with it. There are some workarounds, but I see it as a compromise.

[algrove]

Hi Marc,

I was also struggelingif I should go new M or not. In the end I decided for the new M amd I really enjoy it. I admit that I somewhat miss the way the images came out of the M9 in regards to color and pop (sometimes). I say sometimes because under some light M9 images came out great but under certain mixed light they were difficult to get them right.

 

But one thing where I now really would not like to go back to the M9 is the higher ISO capability of the M. I feel much more freedom to shoot with the appropriate DOF and exp time when using the M since I use all the range up to ISO3200. Thats great and gives me more flexibility. I dont want to spend endless time to post the M in a way the image look like the M9. thats also the reason why I did not keep my M9. I will just try to get the best out of the new M. And I am not unhappy with the results. Still hope that it will get even better with a firmware upgrade.

 

Tom

 

I feel many are missing out on the "pop" that I find my R lenses provide on the M. I have downloaded many on this site. They were my first images taken with the M and every time I look at them I see the pop immediately.

 

This was my first impression and continues until today. I find getting that same pop with many M lenses is best found when using ND filters (or tweaking with LR+Viveza) and I do not know why. I am still trying to determine where pop is and is not present and why. I know my actual shooting techniques contribute to much of the pop, but the variables are beyond what little PP knowledge I currently have.

[colonel]

Correct.

 

Assessing the value of the M system on its suitability for photographing goal-mouth action is, how shall we put it, daft.

 

I don't think anyone was saying its the first system of choice for this activity, just that it can do it.

 

Every camera can shoot everything, some are more suitable then others for certain subjects.

 

Leica M is more of a wide angle system (up to 135mm being my definition ) as the short back focus is a most beneficial system to create high quality wides, as well as all the other advantages

[jaapv]

For sure great action shots are possible with manual focus.

I just thought if you suggest to prefocus in front of the goal and if we say "our" son shooting the goal could shoot it from 1m away or he might stay 10m away from the goal you need a lot of DOF to have him in focus.

I have used Leica M for many years and still use it a lot (maybe 75% of my images) and take many images of my small kids (2 and 5). I see many strong points of the system.

But for certain occasion I find a 5dIII much easier to use, much better keeper rate. But thats me and your skills might be different/better in regards to manual focusing action.

 

Still when I have no other camera than the M with me it doesnt meen that I am hesistating to shoot action shots with it. There are some workarounds, but I see it as a compromise.

 

 

Yes, but my follow-up of prefocused is tap-to-the-left. tap-to-the-right follow focus for the last corrections and synchronize the shutter push with the focus.

The problem I have with AF is that the little goblin in the camera cannot read my mind: do I want the focus on the player, on the ball or on the goalkeeper...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tom0511]

Yes, but my follow-up of prefocused is tap-to-the-left. tap-to-the-right follow focus for the last corrections and synchronize the shutter push with the focus.

The problem I have with AF is that the little goblin in the camera cannot read my mind: do I want the focus on the player, on the ball or on the goalkeeper...

 

Thats why I usually choose the AF point myself and let not the camera decide about it.

When I use the M (with rangefinder lenses) it is more difficult, because the focus patch is allways in the middle. No problem for still to use focus and then recompose, more difficult for moving subjects.

How do you focus with the EVF on the M? Do you use magnification (I hate to have to switch between magnification and full image for framing) or do you use focus peaking? My experience with focus peaking is ok but not great; it depends a lot on the light and contrast of the scene, sometimes everything is illuminated and its hard to focus.

[jaapv]

How are you going to choose your focus point in a dynamic situation like a goal being scored?

I use magnification - the longer the lens the less. Focus peaking is indeed a learning curve, but works fine.